>> Agreed. https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-report/
> Done :)
Perfect, thanks a lot.
___
Babel-users mailing list
Babel-users@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 07:25:13PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > That's a bug in the new RFC text then ;)
>
> Agreed. https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-report/
Done :)
--Daniel
___
Babel-users mailing list
Babel-users@alioth-lists.debian.net
> That's a bug in the new RFC text then ;)
Agreed. https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-report/
-- Juliusz
___
Babel-users mailing list
Babel-users@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
Hi Juliusz,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 01:58:21PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > I don't think RFC8966 is really framed in bird's "multi protocol" mindset
>
> See the beginning of Section 3.7, which describes how a route
> redistributed from another protocol has router-id set to the local
>
> I don't think RFC8966 is really framed in bird's "multi protocol" mindset
See the beginning of Section 3.7, which describes how a route
redistributed from another protocol has router-id set to the local
router's id. Babel updates for the same prefix are processed as usual,
with the routes
Hi Maria,
On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 07:34:06PM +0100, Maria Matejka wrote:
> > I don't think RFC8966 is really framed in bird's "multi protocol" mindset
> > so it's unclear to me whether this is something we have to fix or
> > not. Section 3.8.2.1. says:
> >
> > > A node that has lost all feasible
Hello!
On 2/26/23 19:17, d...@darkboxed.org wrote:
Hi Ondrej, Toke, Juliusz and lists,
I'm working on v4 of my bird route selection patch[1] and I just have a
couple babel spec and bird implementation questions.
[1]: http://trubka.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/2023-January/016621.html
Just
